005061 81.In determining whether this Application was filed within a reasonable time, the Court considers that ordinary judicial remedies related to the present matter were exhausted when the Review Bench of the Supreme Court rendered its judgment on 29 July 2014. 82. Other proceedings were instituted by the Respondent State relevant to the subject of this Application. In this regard, the Court observes that after the Review Bench of the Supreme Court's judgment, between 2014 and 2017, there were two criminal cases which were instituted by the Respondent State against the Applicant for allegedly defrauding the Government by false pretences and for causing financial loss to the State. The judgment was rendered on 12 March 2015 by the High Court. Subsequently, following an appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney General, the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in this matter on 10 March 2016. The Court is of the view that it was reasonable for the Applicant to wait for the final determination of these criminal proceedings as they related to the subject matter of the Application before this Court. 83.|In addition, the Court notes that, the Respondent State established a Commission of Inquiry with a mandate to look into the inordinate payments made from public funds in satisfaction of judgment debts since the 1992 Constitution came into force, including those made to the Applicant and companies associated with him. The record before this Court shows that the Commission of Inquiry completed its work on 20 May 2015 and submitted its report to the President of the Republic of Ghana on 21 May 2015. The Respondent State published the Commission’s report together with the White Paper in 2016. 84. The proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry being quasi-judicial in nature, offered remedies reasonable that the Applicant was expectation not required that the Commission's to exhaust. Nonetheless, findings would have he had resulted a in a decision that was favourable to him and thereby dispensing with the need to file the Application before this Court. The Court considers that despite this expectation, in